Disposed

Ajit Kumar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Delhi HC21 May 2025W.P.(C)/9094/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition entertained earlier only because the Municipal Taxation Tribunal was nonfunctional. With MTT now functional, the court directed the petitioner to file a statutory appeal there and granted four weeks' protection from coercive action, lapsing thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Four weeks' protection from coercive action while filing statutory appeal before MTT; protection lapses if appeal not filed in time.

Ajit Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi — Municipal and Town Planning | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~43

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 9094/2024

¶4

AJIT KUMAR .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Sudeep Singh and Mr. Aditya, Advs. (Through VC)

¶6

versus

¶7

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Tushar Sannu, SC with Mr. Shivam, Adv. for MCD

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶9

O R D E R % 21.05.2025

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent points out to the order dated 08^th July, 2024, to submit that the present writ petition was entertained only because the Municipal Taxation Tribunal (“MTT”), was nonfunctional.

¶11

This Court is informed that MTT is now functional.

¶12

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to seek his remedies before the MTT, by filing a statutory appeal in terms of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (“DMC Act, 1957”).

¶13

At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that an amount of Rs. 8 Lacs already stands deposited with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”), against the original payment of Rs. 14,18,310/-.

¶14

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 20:03:21

¶15

The aforesaid statement is recorded and taken note of.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he may be granted protection for a period of four weeks for the purposes of filing the appeal before the MTT.

¶17

This Court notes that vide order dated 22^nd July, 2024, this Court had granted protection to the petitioner herein, by restraining the respondent from taking any coercive action against the petitioner.

¶18

Accordingly, it is directed that for a period of four weeks, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner herein, in order to allow the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the MTT, in terms of the DMC Act, 1957.

¶19

It is clarified that, in case, the petitioner does not file the statutory appeal before the MTT within the time granted by this Court, the protection as granted by today’s order, shall automatically lapse after the said period of four weeks.

¶20

With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is accordingly, disposed of.

¶21

MAY 21, 2025/Kr

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 20:03:21

Ajit Kumar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit Kumar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Frisco Global Private Limited Vs Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement and Anr.

M/S Ambiience Metcorp Private Limited through Its Director Sh Sandeep Agarwal Vs Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs through Its Chairman & Anr.

Ashok Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Y.P.Spices P Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Trade Taxes & Anr.

Lokesh Sachdeva Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Centre Circle 28 Delhi & Ors.

Chirag Garg Vs Commissioner State Tax, Delhi GST

Santosh Kumar Pandey Vs Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India & Ors.

Jaya Saigal Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary & Ors.

Ashok Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Sunita Devi & Anr. Vs Salra Devi

Mrs. Santosh Singh Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

All Delhi Auto Taxi Transport Congress Union(Regd.) Vs Union of India & Anr.

Sameer Hasan and Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi (West Zone) through Its Commissioner and Ors.

Kavita Chhabra Vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd.